Dispatches from the space race

Time to build on the green fields?

I’ve just been reading a report from Demographia, a right-wing US-based think tank that produces an annual International Housing Affordability Survey.

The UK, surprise, surprise, is one of the most unaffordable place to buy a property in the world (affordability here is calculated by comparing average prices with median incomes).

Large swathes of the country are either seriously unaffordable or fall into the “Whoa, wtf, how much?!” category (severely unaffordable).

Hong Kong ranked as the least affordable major market, with a median income multiple of 11.4. Sydney ranked second least affordable (9.6), followed by Vancouver (9.5), Melbourne (9.0) and Plymouth & Devon, San Francisco, London and Adelaide (all more than 7.0).

Green Belt

Planning high house prices

Why is property so expensive in these places? The report argues forcefully that it’s to do with planning restrictions (they seem to neglect the considerable impact of cheap credit):

Over the past decade advocacy for “smart growth”, with restrictions on development on the edge of the urban fringe, has tended to drive up prices in many markets, including those, like in Australia, where land remains relatively plentiful near major cities.

House prices have skyrocketed principally because of more restrictive land use regulations that have virtually prohibited new house construction on or beyond the urban fringe. This is particularly evident where there are “urban containment” measures, such as urban growth boundaries.

The report’s authors are unhappy with this because it drives down middle class living standards:

The prevailing ideology seeks to limit “sprawl” – that is extended, usually affordable middle class housing – in the name of creating dense “communities” built around transit lines.

Large areas which could accommodate both parks and lower-density middle class housing are essentially walled off, often left only to those wealthy enough to afford large estates and second homes.

They don’t say it in so many words, but the message is clear: in the UK house prices will only come within reach again if we build more, and that will only happen if planning restrictions are eased.

In a nutshell: build on greenfield sites.

How green is the green belt?

We have, of course, been here before: back when New Labour was in power and was promising (and failing) to build a gazillion new homes there was much debate about where, why and how many.

Among the more interesting contributions that got beyond the knee-jerk “they want to concrete over the country!” were some provocative interventions that raised serious questions about what exactly we’re protecting.

The Social Market Foundation, for example, noted that even the fiercely protected Green Belt is not all hedgerows, meadows and ancient timber-framed villages.

Some of it, especially around cities, is scrub land and ex-industrial land. On top of that, many people think far more of the country is built on than is actually the case: only 13% of England is built on. A further 13% is designated as Green Belt.

Greenfield – defined as undeveloped land – includes both the 31% of England classified as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), National Parks, and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and far less sensitive or salubrious sites, and vast amounts of intensive farmland.

Indeed in 2003, Dr. Keith Porter, an information manager at English Nature’s Peterborough headquarters, put forward the heretical argument that the best way to save the biodiversity of the English countryside is to build more low-density housing on farmland.

Intensive farmland, he pointed out, has virtually no wildlife to speak of, while residential developments with gardens and green areas provide sustainable habitats for species such as song thrushes, skylarks and the copper butterfly that are threatened with extinction by agri-business.

Agriculture, he added, was now a minor part of the economy contributing just 1% of gross domestic product but takes up 75% of the country’s land.

That’s a provocative view, but an interesting one too. In Britain, population levels are rising and housing costs are now a major burden for many (not just the middle classes!)

The countryside needs protection, and protecting it should be a priority, but is making an absolute a distinction between nature (in reality many ‘natural’ landscapes are human creations) and human settlement (often hospitable to nature) the best way to do this?

If we could get builders to construct attractive, well planned and genuinely eco-friendly developments, would we be able to protect the environment (maybe even improve some environments) and ease the misery that housing problems inflict on many people?

It’s a very very big ‘if’ of course and would need stringent regulations and careful planning. But shouldn’t we at least explore the possibilities?

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Related

5 Responses

1) Only a small fraction of the countryside is ‘intensive farmland’, but opponents of green belt policy write as if it is all intensively farmed. Much of the intensively farmed stuff is concentrated in certain parts of the country eg. East Anglia.

2) I agree that a shortage of hosuing has driven up prices but the effect of an international credit splurge is equally important.

3) It’s all very well arguing for people to spread out around the country – but one shouldn’t ignore the need for more infrastructure if this occurs. How are they going to get to work? If we all live 2 hours from work will we end up with Southern England as a Los Angeles?

4) Demographia is run by Wendell Cox, a lobbyist for the car industry and a friend of Newt Gingrich.

5) Even if we release land, with development debt unavailable and mortgage debt scarce, who is going to build it? It would also depreciate housebuilder land banks, which could push them beyond the brink. But a bit of creative destruction could be what we need!

Hi Phil, some good points there (and yes, I know old Wendell is a right-winger … his main whinge seems to be that the middle classes are suffering!) I agree re: the infrastructure problem, which can’t be ignored, and I hate to see green fields built on … but the housing situation in many areas (esp SE) is awful and needs to be addressed. Any thoughts on that?